Judgment : (P.B. Majmudar, J.) The challenge in this petition is to the permission granted by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (“the Corporation”) to the Commissioner of Police for the purpose of constructing a police station comprising of ground plus one upper floor situate at CTS No. 373/5 of village Deonar, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as “the said amenity plot”). The petitioners are co-operative housing societies registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The lay out for Raheja Acropolis II was sanctioned by the Corporation in October, 2004. The Respondent No.5, Commissioner of Police for Greater Mumbai, made an application to the Corporation requesting the Corporation to allot plot bearing no. 373/5 of village Deonar for the purpose of proposed Police Station on the said plot. The said request was made in February, 2011. The Corporation approved the said proposal and permission for temporary construction of a Police Station on the said amenity plot was granted. According to the petitioners, the construction in the amenity plot has been carried out consist of ground plus one upper floor with pucca construction walls of cement concrete for the purpose of erecting/constructing full-fledged Police Station. The petitioners made certain correspondence with respondent Nos. 2 and 3 pointing out that the amenity plots could not be allowed to be used for constructing Police Station and that such permission could not have been granted by the Corporation. The petitioners also tried to get the copies of the sanctioned plans, etc. As per the averments made in the petition, on 23rd September, 2011, a letter has been addressed by the Appropriate Authority informing the petitioners that the permission had been granted for temporary Police Station and in view of the said information received by the petitioners, the petitioners have filed this petition challenging the action of the Corporation in allotting the amenity plot to respondent No.5 on temporary basis for the purpose of construction of Police Station. 2. The petitioners have also pressed for interim relief restraining the Respondent No.5 from constructing the Police Station. However, since the construction was completed, interim relief prayed for was not granted. However, this Court had observed in its earlier order dated 21st October, 2011 that the further construction and the steps taken shall be subject to the further orders of this Court. 3. However, since the construction was completed, interim relief prayed for was not granted. However, this Court had observed in its earlier order dated 21st October, 2011 that the further construction and the steps taken shall be subject to the further orders of this Court. 3. Rule has been issued by this Court on 27th February, 2012 and the same has been heard finally at the admission stage itself with the consent of the parties. The permission granted by the Corporation by which respondent No.5 is permitted to construct Police Station on the amenity plot is challenged by the petitioners on various grounds. 4. Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently submitted that as per the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (hereinafter “D.C. Regulations”), it is not permissible to construct a Police Station at the plot in question. It is further submitted by Mr. Dwarkadas that amenity plot is situated in a residential locality which is available for the use of the nearby residents in the locality. It is further submitted that when permanent construction has already been made, it cannot be said to be a temporary structure. It is submitted that even if it is presumed that the construction of Police Station can be said to be a public utility service, yet, it is not open to the Corporation to grant permission in the amenity plot to have permanent type of structure. It is submitted by Mr. Dwarkadas that by no stretch of imagination it could be said that it is only a temporary arrangement. According to him, the construction carried out by respondent No.5 is in violation of various D.C. Regulations. It is submitted that if it is a permanent structure, it cannot be removed. It is further submitted that the construction in question can be said to be a permanent construction and not a temporary one. It is submitted by Mr. Dwarkadas that by allowing a full-fledged Police Station to function in the amenity plot, it may create hurdles in the way of the residents of the area as they face constant disturbances. It is further submitted that in a given case only a temporary type of construction is permitted for police outpost on the amenity plot, but surely no permission for construction of a full-fleded police station can be granted. It is further submitted by Mr. It is further submitted that in a given case only a temporary type of construction is permitted for police outpost on the amenity plot, but surely no permission for construction of a full-fleded police station can be granted. It is further submitted by Mr. Dwarkadas that since Police Station has already been constructed, it is not possible to believe that it will remain in force only for a temporary period of six months for which initial permission is granted. It is submitted that it may amount to putting the amenity plot into reservation as if such reservation is provided in the draft Development Plan. Mr. Dwarkadas has relied upon certain provisions of the D.C. Regulations in order to substantiate his say. It is submitted that since the construction of police station in the said amenity plot is not forming part of the proposed Development Plan, it is not open to the Corporation to give such permission as it can never be said that it is only a temporary measure for six months. 5. Mr. Kamdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation, on the other hand, submits that under Regulation 56 (3) (c) (ii) of D.C. Regulations, such type of permission for constructing Police Station, which is a public utility, is permissible. It is submitted by him that looking to the fact that in the nearby area crime rate is going high that ultimately the Corporation accepted the request made on behalf of respondent No.5 and allowed temporary permission initially for six months for constructing a Police Station, which is a public utility service. It is submitted by Mr. Kamdar that the amenity plot belongs to the Corporation and the Corporation is, therefore, entitled to grant temporary building permission for temporary period, if any request is made by the authority to utilize the plot for the purpose of public utility. It is submitted by Mr. Kamdar that the Police Station is already made functional and he has relied upon the statistics to show that the Police Station was badly required in the area in view of the reporting of large number of crimes in the area. Mr. Kamdar has also relied upon certain provisions of the D.C. Regulations in this behalf to substantiate his say. It is submitted by Mr. Kamdar that the permission is granted only for six months which is renewable maximum upto three years. Mr. Kamdar has also relied upon certain provisions of the D.C. Regulations in this behalf to substantiate his say. It is submitted by Mr. Kamdar that the permission is granted only for six months which is renewable maximum upto three years. It is further submitted that even an undertaking has been taken from respondent No.5 that after completion of the said time limit, they will dismantle the structure and will clear the site. 6. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Police by one Mr. Manoj Shankarlal Lohiya, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6. In paragraph 3 of the said affidavit, it is averred that so far as Police Station of Chembur is concerned, the crime rate has increased and even the population is more as it covers a vast area in Zone-6. Particulars of crime are given in the said paragraph. In paragraph 8 of the reply, it is averred that after obtaining the permission, a new building consisting of ground and first floor for Govandi Police Station was being constructed on temporary basis by using Rapid Wall Technology within a short period on the plot bearing CTS No. 373/5. It is averred that the said temporary building is constructed for Govandi Police Station through Central Government’s Rashtriya Chemical Fertilizers Ltd., who is promoting the said technology. It is also averred that the building is already completed construction and Police Station has already started functioning. The particulars about the offences which are registered at the said Police Station are referred to in paragraph 12 of the said reply. 7. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, an affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Pandurang Laxman Chavan, Assistant Engineer (BP) (ES). In paragraph 4 (a) of the reply, it is averred that the land bearing CTS No. 373/5 of village Deonar is an amenity plot which is abutting the recreation ground. It is further averred that under the sanctioned revised development plan of ‘M’ Ward, CTS No. 373/5 is not reserved for any public purpose except for proposed d13.40 mtrs. wide D.P. Road. The above land is situated in a general industrial zone which is owned by the Corporation. In paragraphs 4 (d) and 5 it is averred as under:- “4 ..(d) I submit that Municipal Commissioner has approved to designate 5% amenity space adm.1096.60 sq. wide D.P. Road. The above land is situated in a general industrial zone which is owned by the Corporation. In paragraphs 4 (d) and 5 it is averred as under:- “4 ..(d) I submit that Municipal Commissioner has approved to designate 5% amenity space adm.1096.60 sq. meters on the land bearing CTS No. 373/5 of village Deonar to construct police station in M/E Ward on 30.3.2011. Thereafter an application dated 4.5.2011 was received from police authorities through the Architect u/sec. 342 of the MMC Act for temporary structure for Govandi Police Station. The said application was processed in accordance with law and as the user for construction of Police Station on the said amenity plot was approved by the Municipal Commissioner, a permission was granted under No. CE/577/BPES/Govt/AM/E dated 4.6.2011. The said permission is only for construction of temporary structure for Govandi Police Station on the terms and conditions as mentioned in the said permission letter. 5. I submit that the plot under reference is the feasible available amenity plot in the said vicinity. I state that the CTS No. 373 is that of approximately 2 hectares abutting the industrial area. There are high rise buildings (above 24 metres) 4 in nos. with two wings each and two single buildings of the petitioners on either side of the road that approaches the present amenity plot in the said layout of CTS No. 373 under reference. The petitioners have filed the present petition with the ulterior motive to use the said land for the members of their residential complexes developed within the said vicinity, next to the present amenity plot which is abutting the RG of the said vicinity. Considering the said residential occupancy in the said area and the availability of the amenity space, these respondents have allowed the user and temporary construction of the Govandi Police Station on the said amenity plot owned by MCGM. I crave leave to refer to and rely upon all the sanctions accorded by these respondents as and when necessary.” 8. We have heard both sides at great length. The question which requires consideration is as to whether it is open to the Corporation to give permission to the Police Department to construct a Police Station in the amenity plot under the provisions of the D.C. Regulations. 9. It may be mentioned that the plot in question belongs to the Corporation. We have heard both sides at great length. The question which requires consideration is as to whether it is open to the Corporation to give permission to the Police Department to construct a Police Station in the amenity plot under the provisions of the D.C. Regulations. 9. It may be mentioned that the plot in question belongs to the Corporation. Regulation 56(1) of D.C. Regulation provides as under: “(1) General conditions governing the uses permitted in I2 Zone. The General Industries Zone (I2 Zone) includes any building or a part of a building or structure in which products or materials of all kinds and properties are fabricated, assembled or processed, e.g. Assembly plants, laboratories, dry-cleaning plants, power plants, pumping stations, smoke houses, laundries, gas plants, refineries, dairies and saw mills.” Under sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 56, certain use is permitted in a General Industries Zone. Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 56 is relevant and the same provides as under: “(3) Notwithstanding anything contained above.- (a) ... .. (b) .... ... (c) With the previous approval of the Commissioner, any open land or lands or industrial lands, in the General Industrial Zone, (I2 Zone) (including industrial estates), excluding lands of cotton textile mills, may be permitted to be utilised for any of the permissible users in the Residential Zone (RI zone) or the Residential Zone with shop line (R2 Zone) or for those in the Local Commercial Zone (C1 Zone) subject to the following:- (i) .... .... (ii) In such layouts or sub-divisions having area more than 2 ha., but less than 5 ha., 20 per cent land for public utilities and amenities like electric substation, bus-station, sub-post office, police out post, garden, playground, school, dispensary and such other amenities shall be provided. In such layout or subdivision each more than 5 ha. in area, 25% land for public utilities and amenities like electric substation, bus-station, sub-post office, police out post, garden, playground, school, dispensary and such other amenities shall be provided: Provided that at least 50 per cent of the amenity space shall be designated as open space reservation. These areas will be in addition to the recreational space as required to be provided under Regulation No.23.” Relying upon the above, it is argued by Mr. Dwarkadas that public utilities and amenities include police outpost and not Police Station. These areas will be in addition to the recreational space as required to be provided under Regulation No.23.” Relying upon the above, it is argued by Mr. Dwarkadas that public utilities and amenities include police outpost and not Police Station. It is submitted that police station, therefore, cannot be equated with police outpost where one or two police constables may sit and it is not to be construed as a full-fledged Police Station. It is submitted by Mr. Dwarkadas that since Police Station has not been mentioned in Regulation 56 (3) (ii), the permission granted by the Corporation for placing Police Station in the amenity plot is illegal and without authority of law. It is further submitted by him that if pucca full-fledged Police Station is constructed, it cannot be said to be a temporary structure and that it is not possible to believe that it will not remain there for ever. It is true, as argued by Mr. Dwarkadas, that so far as Regulation 56 (3) (ii) is concerned, in the permissible activity, the amenities like sub-station, bus-section, sub-post office, police out post, garden, playground, school, dispensary , etc. are permissible. Mr. Dwarkadas has strongly relied upon the public utilities and amenities mentioned in the said provision by stating that what is provided is only electric sub-station and not main electric station, sub-post office and not main post office, etc. He submits that on that basis, police out post, therefore, cannot be construed as a full-fledged Police Station as, according to him, only temporary permission in case of small type of activities such as sub-post office, police out post is permissible on temporary basis. It is submitted by Mr. Dwarkadas that if Police Station is to be constructed in the amenity plot, it cannot be said to be in temporary in nature and, therefore, unless it is reserved in a development plan, in an amenity plot construction of Police Station is not permissible. 10. So far as temporary nature of permission is concerned, it is required to be noted that even as per Rules, a temporary building permission is also permissible and in a given case the Corporation is entitled to give temporary building permission for such construction in the amenity plot. A building permission can be given for a temporary period also. 10. So far as temporary nature of permission is concerned, it is required to be noted that even as per Rules, a temporary building permission is also permissible and in a given case the Corporation is entitled to give temporary building permission for such construction in the amenity plot. A building permission can be given for a temporary period also. Sub-section (sb) of Section 3 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 defines “temporary building” and the same reads thus: “(sb) “temporary building” means any building which is constructed principally of mud, leaves, grass, cloth, thatch, wood, corrugated iron or asbestos cement sheets or such other material and includes a building of whatever size constructed of whatever material which the Commissioner has allowed to be built as a temporary measure” . 11. It is further required to be noted that even if other public utilities which are provided under the D.C. Regulations are concerned, it provide school as well as dispensary. Considering the same, simply because permission to construct ground plus first floor is granted for constructing Police Station, such permission itself cannot be said to be in violation of D.C. Regulations. Sub-regulation (7) of Regulation 2 defines ‘amenity’ and the same reads thus: “Amenity” means roads, streets, open spaces, parks, recreational grounds, play grounds, gardens, water supply, electric supply, street lighting, sewerage, drainage, public works and other utilities, services and conveniences.” Sub-regulation (11) of Regulation 2 defines ‘building’ and the same reads thus: “Building” means a structure, constructed with any materials whatsoever for any purpose, whether used for human habilitation or not, and includes – (i) foundation, plinth, walls, floors, roof, chimneys, plumbing and building services, fixed platforms; (ii) verandahs, balconies, cornices, projections; (iii) part of a building or anything affixed thereto; (iv) any wall enclosing or intended to enclose any land or space, signs and outdoor display structures; (v) tanks constructed for storage of chemicals or chemicals in liquid form; (vi) all types of buildings defined in (a) to (p) below, but tents, shamianas and tarpaulin shelters erected for temporary purposes for ceremonial occasions, with the permission of the Commissioner, shall not be considered to be ‘buildings’. Considering the aforesaid, it is not possible for us to accept the plea of the petitioners that only removable temporary type of construction is permitted on the amenity plot for the public utility purposes. 12. Considering the aforesaid, it is not possible for us to accept the plea of the petitioners that only removable temporary type of construction is permitted on the amenity plot for the public utility purposes. 12. In so far as the reference to police out post in Regulation 56 (3) (ii) is concerned, in out view, it is not possible to accept the submission of Mr. Dwarkadas that except what is provided under Regulation 56 (3) (ii), no other services are permissible. It is to be noted that on reading the Regulation, it is clear that the amenities mentioned in the said provision are only illustrative and not exhaustive as the provision clearly says that such other amenities shall be provided. 13. It is no doubt true that as per Part II of the D.C. Regulations, general planning requirements are mentioned and as per Regulation 9 of D.C. Regulations, the uses of all lands situated within the municipal limits of Greater Bombay, which have been allocated, designated or reserved for certain purposes in the development plan, shall be regulated in regard to type and manner of development/redevelopment, according to Table-4 attached with the same. The said Table-4 contains use of the land and the manner of development. Entry (j) permits chowky and entry 5 (l) permits Police Station. It is true that Police Station is included in Regulation 9 under the heading “General Planning requirements”. Ultimately in a given case, a Police Station can be earmarked in the lay out in the proposed development plan but it can never be said that so far as the need of the Police Station is concerned, it cannot be said to be a public utility as it is meant for the benefit of the people in the area. Mr. Dwarkadas has also submitted that the Police Station cannot be included in the public utility services. According to him, there are only certain type of amenities which are permissible in the amenity plot such as bus-station, police out post, school, dispensary etc. etc. As pointed out earlier, simply because Police Station is not mentioned in Regulation 56 (3) (c) (ii), it cannot be said that except what is written in the said provision, no other amenities can be considered or added in the said clause. In our view, such permission can be said to be in consonance with the provisions of the D.C. Regulations. In our view, such permission can be said to be in consonance with the provisions of the D.C. Regulations. It cannot be said that the Corporation has no power to grant such temporary permission for constructing Police Station. We find substance in the submission of Mr. Dwarkadas that in the draft Development Plan, if the Police Station is not included, then naturally the Corporation can ask the Commissioner to remove the Police Station after the extended period of permission which can be upto a maximum of three years as per the D.C. Regulation. The permission granted by the Corporation in the present case which is at page 57 of the paper book clearly provides that the permission is granted to construct (temporary) Police Station comprising of ground + 1 upper floor on the plot under reference subject to the following conditions: “1. That the date of commencement and completion shall be intimated to this office. 2. That the structural stability certificate for completion of above work shall be submitted through registered Structural Engineer before using the same. 3. That the structure shall be structurally sound and of nonflammable material and will be maintained in good habitable conditions. 4. That the allottee/lessee shall submit an indemnity bond, indemnifying the Corporation and its staff against all the work, damages, litigation, disputes, danger etc. due to the construction and occupation of the transit Accommodation at all the times, before starting the work. 5. That the work shall be carried out strictly under the supervision of licensed Site supervisor and Structural Engineer. 6. Any other charges, taxes, assessment charges etc. in respect to structure under reference shall be paid. 7. That the requirement of any other department of MCGM shall be complied with. 8. That the N.O.C. From Civil Aviation Department shall be obtained for proposed height of the building before starting of the work. 9. That the N.O.C. From Naval Armament Depot shall be obtained before starting the work; 10. That the permission is purely temporary for a period of six months from the date hereof which shall be got renewed by paying necessary charges as admissible. 11. That the structure under reference shall be removed immediately after the stipulated time period is over or even earlier, if so required by this office and necessary undertaking to that effect shall be submitted before starting of work. 12. 11. That the structure under reference shall be removed immediately after the stipulated time period is over or even earlier, if so required by this office and necessary undertaking to that effect shall be submitted before starting of work. 12. As per the M.C.’s Approval condition No.2, necessary formalities for preparation of lease documents and allotment etc. shall be complied before start of actual work.” As stated above, condition No. 10 provides that the permission is purely temporary for a period of six months from the date thereof which shall be got renewed by paying necessary charges. It is also provided under condition No. 11 that the structure shall be removed after the stipulated time period is over or even earlier if so required by the office and undertaking to that effect shall be submitted before commencement of work. As pointed out earlier, undertaking has also been given by Respondent No.5 to the Corporation in this behalf, though the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per their information, no undertaking has been furnished. If no undertaking has been given, the respondent No.5 is directed to see that appropriate undertaking is given to the Corporation within a period of two months from today, other wise the Corporation is free to take appropriate action in accordance with law. 14. Though Regulation 65 provides different types of temporary constructions but considering the provisions of Regulation 56 (3) (ii), Police Station can be said to be a public utility service and amenities for which temporary permission can be granted. The temporary construction and permission can be upto six months which can be extended upto three years. 15. Considering the matter from the aforesaid angle, we are of the opinion that as per the provisions of D.C. Regulations which we have discussed above, for the purpose of public utility amenities, it is permissible for the Commissioner of the Corporation to give temporary permission such as constructing of school activities, dispensaries, etc. As pointed out earlier, the Regulation cannot be given a restrictive meaning and simply because police out post is mentioned there it may, in a given case, include even Police Station but that too only for a temporary period as prescribed under the Regulation and not beyond that. If such permission is continued indefinitely, one may say that it may amount to reservation of Police Station in such an amenity plot. If such permission is continued indefinitely, one may say that it may amount to reservation of Police Station in such an amenity plot. The Commissioner, therefore, is required to see that the permission granted to the police authorities for construction of police station is to be construed only temporary in nature and Police Station can be allowed to function till the period of permission is in force and not beyond that. As rightly argued by Mr. Kamdar, that in the meanwhile it is for the Police Department to find a place for their Police Station as this can be treated only as a temporary arrangement under D.C. Regulation which can be said to be of emergent situation and with a view to see that the area in question may not remain without Police Station for want of place available as of today. If ultimately any Draft Development plan is sanction wherein area in question is reserved for Police Station, it stands on a different footing but in the absence of such eventuality, the permission granted to the Police Department is to be construed only as a temporary permission initially for six months which can be renewed upto three years as per the provisions of the D.C. Regulation quoted above. 16. Considering the aforesaid, it is held that the permission granted by the Commissioner of the Corporation is to be construed as a temporary permission under the D.C. Regulation. It is for the Commissioner to monitor this aspect periodically and also to consider as to whether the conditions on which the permission has been granted have been complied with by the Police Department or not or whether any violation in this behalf has been committed or not. At the time of extending the permission after six months, the Commissioner of the Corporation shall also consider the aforesaid aspects in accordance with law. 17. Suffice it to say that since the Commissioner was within his power to grant such permission for temporary use and was entitled to give temporary building permission for the purpose of construction of a Police Station which is a public amenity and public utility service, no fault can be found with the permission granted by the Commissioner in this behalf. 18. 18. In view of what is stated above, we do not find any substance in the submission of the petitioners that in the plot which is reserved for public amenity, permission for constructing Police Station could not have been granted even for temporary use. As we have already discussed above, even as per the affidavit filed by the Police Department, it is clear that the construction is removable and even as per permission granted by the Commissioner, the construction is required to be removed on the basis of permission granted by the Corporation. The Commissioner of the Corporation to act accordingly and see that the temporary construction is permitted for a temporary period as per D.C. Regulation and the Police Department shall also abide by the same condition and in case the permission is not extended in future, they shall abide by the undertaking which is to be given by them to the authorities. If the undertaking is not given so far, respondent No.5 may give appropriate undertaking to the Corporation within a period of two months from today. 19. In view of what is stated above, Petition is rejected. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.